4 Responses to “Apple Vs. Woolworths Vs. Perspective”

I think it’s worth noting in this, that while the prominence of this case in the blogosphere could easily bring one to believe that Apple is suddenly going all-out against Woolworth over their new logo, a little research on the subject might dispell that, and a little thinking might even justify Apple’s approach.

Allow me to demonstrate:

A trademark lawyer, Trevor Choy, said it was common for Apple to prevent anyone from using anything that resembled an apple in a logo or marketing.

“They are just covering off any eventualities,” Mr Choy said.

But less than 5 per cent of such actions actually make it to court, he said. “This is often the prelude to settling [the matter]. I doubt it’ll go all the way unless, of course, Woolworths decides that they want to go into computers… I doubt Apple expects to win.” #

In other words, Apple does this ‘all the time’…

From the comments thus far, it appears that no one has ever gone through the trademark process, or comprehended the post. Looks like it’s knee-jerk reaction Monday. (Not that I haven’t done this myself)

Will Woolworths Limited prevail against Apple’s claim, more than likely, but it’s quite automatic, well it should be, for a company to protect it’s brand. Failure to protect one’s brand/service mark can cause fan/hateboys to react in an entirely different way once others have began using another’s trademark to describe their products, or services. #

…as they should, because that’s what you do to protect your brand. Xerox and Hoover, pay attention now.

Furthermore, let’s face the fact that while we may, in all our saviness and streetsmarts easily distinguish between an apple and an Apple, our collective mothers probably don’t. And should Woolworths move into the electronics business, which is very likely as they’ve filed for blanket coverage and as Engadget points out.
And finally:

We’d also like to note that all these stories today have but a single source, and that Apple actually filed their notice of opposition in March but no one noticed until Woolworths talked to The Age. #

So, you know… It’s a storm in a cup of applejuice. Hardy har har.

PS: I am not friends with your WYSIWYG editor. Pasting stuff from a text editor breaks the linebreaks, and I miss Textile.

You’ve gone to great lengths to post here due to tech errors (you’ll be happy to know that I’ve already fired the technician, out of a cannon, in to the sun), so the least I can do is provide a proper response.

And yet it is ridiculous on the face of it, especially given these snacksized three pictures above.

Michael Heilemann: …as they should, because that’s what you do to protect your brand. Xerox and Hoover, pay attention now.

… and Google, to muddy my own argument.

Michael Heilemann: Furthermore, let’s face the fact that while we may, in all our saviness and streetsmarts easily distinguish between an apple and an Apple, our collective mothers probably don’t. And should Woolworths move into the electronics business, which is very likely as they’ve filed for blanket coverage and as Engadget points out.

I think the Woolworths logo is just outside the realm where collective mothers will wonder, especially given the context. Apples lookscape is a bleak vast nothingness of white plastic, cold grey chrome and matte finishes whereas Woolworths reminds me of Starbucks, but for food. Which is why I picked up on the story.

So, the lawsuit is one which is to be expected, near automatic, and just a matter of keeping your house in order for global companies. Allright, I’ll agree with you on that one.

Yes, it seems quite a few of the lesser blogs than this one (I hold my head high), jump in the flamewar fray and cry BOOH APPLE! Okay so maybe I’ve pointed and laughed in Apples general direction for complaining that an apple slice formed as a W infringes on Apples logo, when Apples logo in turn infringed upon The Beatles music company logo, but I think that’s fair because Apple is essentially doing what Apple Corps did to Apple decades ago. Suing and settling.

Which if you think about it, is just ridiculous. Why couldn’t Apples lawyers meet Woolworths lawyers have a few beers and move on?

I know that’s not how the world works, and that’s a pity. But I’ll reserve my right to make fun of them all for it.

Nobody’s sued anyone yet though (at least, according to Engadget, which seems to know what they’re talking about):

Here’s what’s really going on, outside of the sad media frenzy that surrounds anything Apple does: in both the US and Australian systems, a trademark registration is applied for with the appropriate federal agency — the USPTO, or, in this case, IP Australia. After a period of review by that office for eligibility, it’s then published for other companies to review and potentially oppose because it would cause confusion with their own marks. This is the fundamental essence of the trademark process, and every company with a major mark goes through it several times a year — it’s not a lawsuit, and there’s no judge or jury, just the trademark examiner. Sure, there are some potentially meaningful and expensive consequences, but filing and responding to oppositions is something that any trademark attorney does quite frequently, and it’s not like Apple’s aggressively suing anyone here. It’s just part of the process. “#”:http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/05/apple-woolworths-in-australian-trademark-dispute-media-in-hys/

Joen: Which if you think about it, is just ridiculous. Why couldn’t Apples laywers meet Woolworths lawyers have a few beers and move on?

Hey, wouldn’t that be a wonderful world to live in. Of course, Woolworths would never agree to that, so they’d have to slug it out in the thunderdome, and… well, you know.